Preliminaries Flashcards
What is the Constitution according to Justice Malcolm?
It is a written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited, and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the public.
What is the purpose of the Constitution?
The Constitution’s purpose is to prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first fixed principles in which the government is founded.
What are the (3) essential parts of a written Constitution?
The essential parts of a written Constitution are the following:
(1) Constitution of Liberty, that provides the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
(2) Constitution of Government, outlines the organization of the Government, enumerating its powers, laying down rules to its administration, and defining the electorate.
(3) Constitution of Sovereignty, which are series of provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about.
What are the (4) well-settled principles as to how the constitution should be construed or interpreted? Explain each of them.
In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the well-settled principles as to how the Constitution should be construed or interpreted are the following:
(1) Verba Legis - Words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except technical terms.
(2) Ratio Legis Est Anima - If there is ambiguity, the words in the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
(3) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat - The Constitution should be interpreted as a whole. No provision in the Constitution should be separated from the others.
(4) Aids Of Construction
What is the difference of a self-executing provision from a non-self executing provision? Give examples each.
A self-executing provision is a provision that by itself, is directly or indirectly applicable without need of statutory enactment from the legislative department while non-self executing provisions are provisions that remains dormant unless it is activated by statutory enactment from the legislative department.
Example of self-executing provisions are the provisions under Article III, or otherwise known as the Bill of Rights.
In Pamatong v. COMELEC, provisions under Article II are generally not self-executing provisions as they are merely guidelines for legislative or executive actions.
What is the difference between amendment or revision?
Amendments are isolated or piecemeal changes, and does not change the basic governmental design, while revision is a rewriting of the whole document, and this changes our basic governmental design.
The two steps of the amendatory process is proposal and ratification.
What are the methods of proposal and what are the requirements of ratification?
The methods of proposal under Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution are (1) Constituent Assembly, (2) Constitutional Convention, and (3) People’s Initiative (only applies to amendment, and not revision)
The requirements for ratification are (1) the approval must come from the people themselves, and (2) must be within a reasonable time.
What is the power of judicial review? Who exercises the power?
The power of judicial review is to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution.
It is vested to the Supreme Court, but the lower courts are also vested the power to look into the constitutionality of laws, statutes, and treaties when raised before them.
What are the (5) requisites of Judicial Review? Discuss each one of them.
Under Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, the power of judicial review is subject to the following limitations:
(1) Actual case or controversy - There must be a conflict of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
(2) Must be raised by the proper party - A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.
(3) The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity - This does not pertain to the date of the filing of the case, but that the constitutional issue must be raised in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
(4) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case - as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds.
Under the first requisite, which is that there must be an actual case or controversy, if the case is moot and academic, will the Court not exercise the power of judicial review?
No, the Court can still exercise the power of judicial review.
The moot and academic principle is not always absolute, as long as there is (1) grave violation of the Constitution, (2) an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is involved, (3) the constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evasive of review.
